Opposed rolls

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

I had a worrying thought that the new default rule also included a slight amount of Opposed Roll mechanism, and all the optionals were variations of it. But I can't find the reference now, and don't have Ed.Zero. Could somebody please tell me I'm wrong?

<Time passes. It transpires frogspawner was not wrong...>
Noooooo! Why does this have to be the one time I was right? Why Why? WHY?

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Okay, so let me see if I got this right.
Two characters are having an opposed test. Say Gambling. Let's say both have a 70% skill.

The first guy rolls a 26, the second a 54.

Now by the rules of oppositiong the second guy win the resoiltuion by rolling higher, yet under his skills.

Then his success gets downgraded to a failure since the first guy did succeed.

Is that how it works?

Yep, by my reckoning that's exactly what the rule-as-written says. Unfortunately. Any other interpretation is speculation.

By the way, I didn't think CoC had this Opposed Roll mechanism (but I only have 2nd-ed and don't play much), so has it been imported from Elric!/Stormbringer?

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

[i]Yep, by my reckoning that's exactly what the rule-as-written says. Unfortunately. Any other interpretation is speculation.

By the way, I didn't think CoC had this Opposed Roll mechanism (but I only have 2nd-ed and don't play much), so has it been imported from Elric!/Stormbringer?

No. No version of BRP had this. MRQ, hoewever, has this exact rule, right now to the same exact problem. But since Jason said that he has not looked at MRQ and would'nt read it if he was given it, I think it is just two people coming up with the same thing at the same time. Probably becuase they are working with similar systems.

That said. The rule as written, is a deal breaker for me, assuming that I thought anyone was expected to run it that way, and that the masses were going to do so.

As it is , my spuculation is that it can't downgrade something to lower than a success.

Now I'd love to use a partial success rule for reduced effect. Something like the looser only losing half the money if he makes a partial success, but that would be my house rule.

[lawrence.whitaker]

Okay, so let me see if I got this right.
Two characters are having an opposed test. Say Gambling. Let's say both have a 70% skill.

The first guy rolls a 26, the second a 54.

Now by the rules of oppositiong the second guy win the resoiltuion by rolling higher, yet under his skills.

Then his success gets downgraded to a failure since the first guy did succeed.

If I'm understanding this interpretation, you're saying that Second Guy rolling 54 gets downgraded because first guy also rolled a success?

If so, then that's not right - certainly in MRQ. Second Guy wins the contest because he has the better roll (under, yet higher than Frst Guy). In opposed combat, First Guy would be downgraded to a failure, not Second Guy.

Am I understanding you correctly?

I like the gambling example though. It can be rationalised thus. Both guys, playing cards, have hands that could be winners. But Second Guy has a pair of aces whilst First Guy has an ace and a king. Both succeeded in playing good hands (for eg, neither folds in the first round), but Second Guy has trumped the First Guy with his better hand - so First Guy has, effectively, failed.

[Atgxtg]

[quote=lawrence.whitaker;6863]If I'm understanding this interpretation, you're saying that Second Guy rolling 54 gets downgraded because first guy also rolled a success?

If so, then that's not right - certainly in MRQ. Second Guy wins the contest because he has the better roll (under, yet higher than Frst Guy). In opposed combat, First Guy would be downgraded to a failure, not Second Guy.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Yeah. That's how it seems to work. With BRP I think the intention is for the winning success to remain a success, but the way it is written, since both rolls are successful the loser gets to downgrade the winners roll. The idea was that a special parry would downgrade a critical attack to a special or normal success, but as it stands it looks likeif both succeed it will turn into a both fail.


As for MRQ, the method used there just made weapon APs obsolete, since a successful parry by the opposed method reduces the attack roll to a failure and thus does no damage.

According to the player's update, page 4 it states:

The attack and defence rolls are then made
simultaneously by the combatants and the results
compared according to the opposed test mechanics: as
usual a Critical Success always beats a normal success,
but if the success levels are equal, the higher Success roll
wins and the lower roll is demoted by one level. I.e. if
both combatants roll a normal success, then the higher
roll remains a success, but the lower roll is downgraded
to a failure, or if both roll a critical success the lower
roll is downgraded to a normal success. This may seem
unfair when both combatants have succeeded, but it is a logical outcome. In such situations the winning opponent
has exhibited either greater luck or greater competence,
and turned the situation to his advantage.


So a success vs. a success is treated as a success vs. a failure on the table. That makes parries all or nothing affairs and weapon APs somewhat academic. I know your name's on the update, but was that your intention.

Originally Posted by lawrence.whitaker

I like the gambling example though. It can be rationalised thus. Both guys, playing cards, have hands that could be winners. But Second Guy has a pair of aces whilst First Guy has an ace and a king. Both succeeded in playing good hands (for eg, neither folds in the first round), but Second Guy has trumped the First Guy with his better hand - so First Guy has, effectively, failed.

Yeah, of even that the first player did have the better hand, but the second player bluffed him.

But if playing to cover a peroid of time rather than indivual hands, I'd probably use the result to determine how much each character won or lost. The "winner" would be the big winner of the night, the "partial successes" would win, but not as much, and do the reverse with the losers.


But I'm partial to partial successes.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

No. No version of BRP had this. MRQ, hoewever, has this exact rule, right now to the same exact problem. But since Jason said that he has not looked at MRQ and would'nt read it if he was given it, I think it is just two people coming up with the same thing at the same time. Probably becuase they are working with similar systems.

You might think that, but I reckon if they were songs he'd have to pay Mongoose a royalty!

Anyway, I wonder if Mr D would care to reconcile the introduction of Opposed Rolls as the only option with what he said about BRPs parentage (in the context of shields, but as a general principle IMO):

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

And for clarification, RQ was the third tier of reference for this book. In order, the first source was Elric!/Stormbringer, then Call of Cthulhu, then RQ was utilized where those works didn't suffice. Then came Elfquest, Ringworld, Superworld, etc.

PS: ...and I'm opposed to Opposed Rolls!

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

You might think that, but I reckon if they were songs he'd have to pay Mongoose a royalty!

Not really, since the concept of opposed rolls predates MRQ by a couple of decades. The version used in mRQ is highly reminiscent of Pendragon. And the overrall method reminds me of Rolemaster.

There are actually a few other ways to handle this, too. But part of the difficulty lies in the fact that percentile dice are the worst dice to use for opposed resolution.

[Lord Twig]

I don't remember what thread, but I asked Jason about opposed rolls since I was confused and he cleared it up. The rules as currently written compare the degree of success to see who wins. Critical beats a Special etc. Then the loser downgrades the winners success depending on his own success.

It then goes on to say that if they both get the same degree of success then the higher roll wins. It was my error that I then applied the previous rule that the the loser would downgrade the winner's success resulting in a Fail/Fail result each time. When I read it now it is perfectly clear that that is not what was intended.

Jason explained it to me then said that he would add some wording to make it clearer.

Again, even without the additional wording, if you read it correctly it is pretty clear what is intended.

I really don't understand why just having rules for opposed skill rolls would be a deal breaker. Nothing says that you have to use them. There is also an entire page of optional ways to do opposed skill rolls if you don't like the default. It really doesn't matter how you do them or if you use them at all. It won't make any difference in any published material, a skill will have a number next to it regardless of which system is used.

[badcat]

I'm out. Obviously this new book has nothing to offer except headaches. So long.

[CruelDespot]

Obviously this new book has nothing to offer except headaches

Bah. I don't see why. The rules as described above work great. It may look complicated on the first reading, but in practice it is very simple, and it has a certain mathematical elegance. The reason that the higher role wins on a tie is because it favors the side with a higher chance of success.

Example: Bob is hiding and we are checking to see if Joe spots him. Bob has a hide skill of 75% and rolls a 63. Joe has a spot hidden of 50% and rolls a 12. Bob wins and isn't spotted. Note that if Joe had rolled a 63, it would have exceeded his skill, but it is a success for Bob. The side with a greater skill score has a proportionally better chance of rolling higher if they both succeed.

Easy!

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

I really don't understand why just having rules for opposed skill rolls would be a deal breaker. Nothing says that you have to use them. There is also an entire page of optional ways to do opposed skill rolls if you don't like the default. It really doesn't matter how you do them or if you use them at all. It won't make any difference in any published material, a skill will have a number next to it regardless of which system is used.

If most of the rolls were going to be fail/fail it would have been. THat would get old quick.